Re: dh-make-php in unstable
Hi, Charles
We are discussing about php policy in this list.
I think we can finish this policy and after make these changes :)
I respectfully disagree. :-)
I propose that we try to get dh-make-php (and other standard tools) to
approximate our best guess at a policy, and then modify them over time
as necessary.
That said, I don't have the experience/understanding to respond to the
issues you raised, so I am of no practical help here. Uwe?
I respectfully believe that we will "never" have a policy or tools. :)
I read emails about dh-make-php wrote in 2000...and nothing changed
since that time.
Two or Three weeks ago I started a thread about "php policy and etc.."
and, Sean wrote this initial policy.
http://webapps-common.alioth.debian.org/draft-php/html
I really think , if we finish this policy,, will be more easy change dh-make-php and other tools.
Other thing,, PEAR packages that have "PHP License" cant be packaged ,
because IHMO :(
Maybe I missed something here, but your reasoning is a bit vuague. One
of my PEAR packages was initially rejected for using the PHP License,
becasue it has several clauses that are specifc to PHP the language, and
make no sense when applied to a PHP program.
Look at these topics
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00128.html>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00130.html
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/08/msg00130.html>
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00222.html
<http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2005/02/msg00222.html>
Look, specially at this point..
We named pear packages like, ex. php-cache or php-services-weather
---------------------------------------------------
For php4:
4. Products derived from this software may not be called "PHP", nor
may "PHP" appear in their name, without prior written permission
from group@php.net. You may indicate that your software works in
conjunction with PHP by saying "Foo for PHP" instead of calling
it "PHP Foo" or "phpfoo"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
And many PEAR developers dont want change license of your programs :(
In my case, the developer was happy to make the change, knowing the
benefit that would come from it. Sadly this may not always be the case.
Hum, you had luck,
I made 4 packages that had problem with license, and just 2 upstreamers
answer me.
And both dont want to change license. look what one say to me.
--------------------------------------------
Tell me, what makes BSD more free than the PHP License? Or the Apache
License for that matter? (I doubt, debian will put the ASL under
non-free, will they?) And which BSD License exactly?
And putting something like a PEAR library under the GPL is some of the
more stupid thing one could do... IMHO.
Look, if debian has a problem with the php license, then I'm really the
wrong person for discussing that. I won't change the license of my
package, the php license is just fine and works.
-----------------------------------------
[]
Jose Carlos
Reply to: